Storing data locally will in theory give people more control over their data. It seems though that it will in this case only give the government more control over your data.
The second part is much worse and a continuation of russian policy to keep journalists and other people who have unpleasant things to say silent.
Actually very often the harm is not done to the ones that are paying the company doing the harm.
Also most consumers have no idea about the harm, even if it's done to them.
So trusting the free market will fix everything is pretty dumb and has failed many times.
No net neutrality only hinders the development of some bad business models. We (the rest of the world) do have a properly regulated internet market and there's much more investment into lesser populated markets. At the same time net neutrality has allowed the development of many business models that are in use today, should we stifle their further development?
Unidentified means they don't know who owns the drone and they would be unable to tell it different from any other drone.
When they say it's a "drone" that means they did identify it as a drone, otherwise they would say unidentified flying object (UFO).
I am pretty sure Google already pays everyone in the UK who provides them goods or services.
Sure the people who work for them, because those people contribute to Google. But they should also contribute something to the UK as a country, because the country also contributes to Google apart from the work people do.
You seem to be doing that just fine yourself already.
No I'm not a communist.
Do you define a lack of absolute trust in the concept that companies seeking profit will somehow magically fix all our problems?
Then I am a communist.
It's so strange that some people in the US have defined communism as wanting things to be more fair.
So the problem is over regulation or just bad regulation? Maybe because it where big companies who brought this regulation into existence in the first place.
So you think Google will give up 75% of the profit they get in the UK because they don't want to give up 25%?
And the UK does not think they are entitled to anyone's production.
The UK contributes to Googles production and wants Google to contribute to the UK in return. But I'm sure you can phrase that in such a way it looks like I'm a communist.
So now even remote scottish islanders have better internet than most of the US.
When will the US realize they have to regulate their internet market?
Will it be when Africa passes them in average internet connection?(every other populated continent has)
Will it be when other nations start to apply diplomatic pressure because they are slowing down the world as a whole?
Will it be when they end up as the nation in the world with the worst internet connection?
1. Yes that's the problem, they should not. In my opinion. Currently most governments seem to follow your opinion rather than mine.
2. No, companies are only taxed after they pay their wages and pay for their other costs. Also the remainder is most definitely not 'distributed', instead it's grabbed by the companies top, proportional to how much power they have in the company. Only a very small number of people benefit from high company profits.
3. The 'bullshit' is what we as a community want because we want our community to be well-organized. There are always things you personally don't like, that's life. Most 'leftists' would spend no or much less money on military. If anyone could block the government from spending any money on the things they don't like there would be no military spending either, is that what you want? Or do you just want to be a dictator so you always get your way?
The only where it matters who says it is when you are wrong and unable to argue the point.
A lower tax rate is considered a "benefit" as if the government is tossing a cookie out and patting the corporate (or individual) dog on the head and saying "good boy!"
When that tax rate is lower than the one people have to pay over their income and it's only paid over the profit the company makes (unlike personal taxes which are paid before basic life maintenance) - yes it's a benefit because it means people have to make up the difference on their personal taxes.
The government has no inherent natural right to take money from anyone.
Of course not, but lets be realistic how else will it pay for services?
If you really don't want to pay tax you can always move to Yemen.
But you want a police force to reduce crime, fire department to put out fires, etc...
Taxes are necessary to make those things happen.
I want everyone to pay their taxes so nobody has to pay an unfair amount.
Also I think most companies will be happy to pay their taxes, so long as their competition also has to, because they benefit from government services just the same.
companies are shifting assets and income
That's so broken! These companies enjoy roads, an educated population, etc, they should not be allow to 'move' income from the place they earned it.
Haven't Microsoft, Apple and Google already spend billions of dollars on this?
Seems they are appealing to any random developer who might have an idea.
This change is good for the users of Facebook. The idea that this might change who becomes president shows how bad the US political system is. Facebook does not have a responsibility to influence politics in any way.
I'd say dumping is done to get rid of old stock or an attempt to bankrupt the competition.
I think Intel very well realizes that they are not going to bankrupt their competition and the processors sold where newly designed.
"rest assured that AMD and Ubisoft are continuing to work together closely"
That does not fly if you simply blame the other party.
If you were aware of the problem you should have scaled down the graphics of that version.
This is such a bullshit excuse.
Or there was plenty of evolution before this 'explosion', but we don't see fossils of that time because the animals had such soft bodies that don't fossilize well.
With that attitude nothing will get better. You are not being blamed for what's wrong with the world, but if we are going to improve the world first wat's wrong has to be named.
Only harrasers should feel harrased by this debate. If you treat people with respect you should be happy with this debate, whether you are a white man or not.
But if something bad happens they'll always be able to blame someone that looks bad because of their social activity.
The purpose of these spy actions is not to stop terrorists or real criminals, but to control the population.
Slashdot Mirror
"instantly send and receive money internationally."
So other, international banks must already have a similar system then?
Storing data locally will in theory give people more control over their data. It seems though that it will in this case only give the government more control over your data.
The second part is much worse and a continuation of russian policy to keep journalists and other people who have unpleasant things to say silent.
Actually very often the harm is not done to the ones that are paying the company doing the harm.
Also most consumers have no idea about the harm, even if it's done to them.
So trusting the free market will fix everything is pretty dumb and has failed many times.
If you were an advertiser you should reconsider using annoying adds.
This is no miracle. Their final goal is going to Mars, they think going to the Moon will allow them to learn and do a better job at going to Mars.
No net neutrality only hinders the development of some bad business models. We (the rest of the world) do have a properly regulated internet market and there's much more investment into lesser populated markets. At the same time net neutrality has allowed the development of many business models that are in use today, should we stifle their further development?
Unidentified means they don't know who owns the drone and they would be unable to tell it different from any other drone.
When they say it's a "drone" that means they did identify it as a drone, otherwise they would say unidentified flying object (UFO).
I am pretty sure Google already pays everyone in the UK who provides them goods or services.
Sure the people who work for them, because those people contribute to Google. But they should also contribute something to the UK as a country, because the country also contributes to Google apart from the work people do.
You seem to be doing that just fine yourself already.
No I'm not a communist.
Do you define a lack of absolute trust in the concept that companies seeking profit will somehow magically fix all our problems?
Then I am a communist.
It's so strange that some people in the US have defined communism as wanting things to be more fair.
So the problem is over regulation or just bad regulation? Maybe because it where big companies who brought this regulation into existence in the first place.
So you think Google will give up 75% of the profit they get in the UK because they don't want to give up 25%?
And the UK does not think they are entitled to anyone's production.
The UK contributes to Googles production and wants Google to contribute to the UK in return. But I'm sure you can phrase that in such a way it looks like I'm a communist.
So now even remote scottish islanders have better internet than most of the US.
When will the US realize they have to regulate their internet market?
Will it be when Africa passes them in average internet connection?(every other populated continent has)
Will it be when other nations start to apply diplomatic pressure because they are slowing down the world as a whole?
Will it be when they end up as the nation in the world with the worst internet connection?
1. Yes that's the problem, they should not. In my opinion. Currently most governments seem to follow your opinion rather than mine.
2. No, companies are only taxed after they pay their wages and pay for their other costs. Also the remainder is most definitely not 'distributed', instead it's grabbed by the companies top, proportional to how much power they have in the company. Only a very small number of people benefit from high company profits.
3. The 'bullshit' is what we as a community want because we want our community to be well-organized. There are always things you personally don't like, that's life. Most 'leftists' would spend no or much less money on military. If anyone could block the government from spending any money on the things they don't like there would be no military spending either, is that what you want? Or do you just want to be a dictator so you always get your way?
Exactly what is wrong with the left.
The only where it matters who says it is when you are wrong and unable to argue the point.
A lower tax rate is considered a "benefit" as if the government is tossing a cookie out and patting the corporate (or individual) dog on the head and saying "good boy!"
When that tax rate is lower than the one people have to pay over their income and it's only paid over the profit the company makes (unlike personal taxes which are paid before basic life maintenance) - yes it's a benefit because it means people have to make up the difference on their personal taxes.
The government has no inherent natural right to take money from anyone.
Of course not, but lets be realistic how else will it pay for services?
If you really don't want to pay tax you can always move to Yemen.
But you want a police force to reduce crime, fire department to put out fires, etc...
Taxes are necessary to make those things happen.
I want everyone to pay their taxes so nobody has to pay an unfair amount.
Also I think most companies will be happy to pay their taxes, so long as their competition also has to, because they benefit from government services just the same.
companies are shifting assets and income
That's so broken! These companies enjoy roads, an educated population, etc, they should not be allow to 'move' income from the place they earned it.
Sadly it has to be done this way. Because countries refuse to stop giving the ridiculous tax benefits.
Just because the US political system is so corrupt does not mean it's like that everywhere.
In most countries governments work pretty well.
Haven't Microsoft, Apple and Google already spend billions of dollars on this?
Seems they are appealing to any random developer who might have an idea.
Or something like that. Yahoo get's more search, Firefox users get their privacy respected.
This change is good for the users of Facebook. The idea that this might change who becomes president shows how bad the US political system is. Facebook does not have a responsibility to influence politics in any way.
I'd say dumping is done to get rid of old stock or an attempt to bankrupt the competition.
I think Intel very well realizes that they are not going to bankrupt their competition and the processors sold where newly designed.
"rest assured that AMD and Ubisoft are continuing to work together closely" That does not fly if you simply blame the other party. If you were aware of the problem you should have scaled down the graphics of that version. This is such a bullshit excuse.
Or there was plenty of evolution before this 'explosion', but we don't see fossils of that time because the animals had such soft bodies that don't fossilize well.
With that attitude nothing will get better. You are not being blamed for what's wrong with the world, but if we are going to improve the world first wat's wrong has to be named.
So that harassment should also end. Still women suffer much more so that get's more attention.
Only harrasers should feel harrased by this debate. If you treat people with respect you should be happy with this debate, whether you are a white man or not.
But if something bad happens they'll always be able to blame someone that looks bad because of their social activity.
The purpose of these spy actions is not to stop terrorists or real criminals, but to control the population.